[Senate Report 109-204]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
109th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 109-204
_______________________________________________________________________
Calendar No. 321
WARNING, ALERT, AND RESPONSE NETWORK ACT
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
on
S. 1753
DATE deg.December 8, 2005.--Ordered to be printed
Filed under authority of the order of the Senate of November 18, 2005
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
one hundred ninth congress
first session
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
CONRAD BURNS, Montana Virginia
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine BARBARA BOXER, California
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon BILL NELSON, Florida
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
Lisa Sutherland, Staff Director
Christine Drager Kurth, Deputy Staff Director
David Russell, Chief Counsel
Margaret Cummisky, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Samuel Whitehorn, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
Calendar No. 321
109th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 109-204
======================================================================
WARNING, ALERT, AND RESPONSE NETWORK ACT
_______
December 8, 2005.--Ordered to be printed
Filed under authority of the order of the Senate of November 18, 2005
_______
Mr. Stevens, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 1753]
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to
which was referred the bill (S. 1753) to establish a unified
national hazard alert system, and for other purposes, having
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an
amendment (in the nature of a substitute) and recommends that
the bill (as amended) do pass.
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of S. 1753 is to create a national alert system
that will build upon current alerting capabilities to provide
alerts to the public across a variety of media technologies to
protect public safety. The bill will provide for the
development and administration of a unified alerting system
that will allow Federal, State, tribal and local officials to
provide alerts to their communities across a variety of
communication technologies. The bill aims to ensure that an
individual will receive an alert of a pending threat regardless
of their location or the communication technologies in use.
Additionally, as amended, the bill authorizes the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to establish,
operate, and maintain a dependable national tsunami warning
system that would provide maximum tsunami detection capability
for the nation. The system would build on the model established
in the Pacific, and provide for its repair, expansion and
modernization by the close of calendar year 2007. The system
would include four components: an expanded and upgraded
detection and warning system, a Federal-State tsunami hazard
mitigation program, a tsunami research program, and a
modernization and upgrade program. In addition, the bill would
direct NOAA to provide any necessary technical or other
assistance to international efforts to establish regional
systems in other parts of the world, including the Indian
Ocean. The bill would authorize $35 million for each of fiscal
years 2006-2012 to carry out these activities.
Background and Needs
NATIONAL ALERTING PROGRAM
CURRENT ALERTING PROGRAMS
Currently Federal, State, and local governments use a variety
of mechanisms to alert the public to threats from natural
hazards, man-made accidents, and terrorist incidents. Most
prominent among the alerting mechanisms is the Emergency Alert
System that utilizes cable and broadcast television and radio
to rebroadcast alerts to the listening public. Additionally,
NOAA operates the NOAA All-Hazards Radio program that includes
over 900 radio transmitters across the United States that
broadcast alerts to specially configured devices.
Recently, many municipalities have begun operating their own
alerting systems. These systems allow citizens to receive
alerts over cell phones, email, and wireline communications
from the government on events ranging from school closings to
terrorist attacks. The wireless industry has also implemented a
program that allows their customers to receive Amber Alerts as
text messages over their cell phones.
LIMITATIONS OF EXISTING PROGRAMS
Current alerting regimes suffer from 2 chief limitations:
gaps in the penetration of the alerting capability both within
and among communications technologies and the limited
capability to target the alerts to a particular geographic
region.
The new alerting programs that are being fielded by
municipalities require citizens to ``opt-in'' to the program.
Even with the best education efforts, large segments of the
population are unaware of the system and unable to receive
alerts. For example in the National Capital region there are
only approximately 50,000 subscribers to mobile wireless alerts
in a region of approximately 4 million people, most of whom own
a wireless device and are very attuned to the threat of natural
disasters and terrorist incidents. Similarly, although the NOAA
All-Hazards Radio system broadcasts to over 98 percent of the
population of the United States, only 17 percent of households
own a receiver. While there are a number of alerting mechanisms
available to the public, because of coordination and
implementation problems, there is not a comprehensive and
reliable alerting ability for emergency managers.
Beyond the difficulties associated with low penetration
within affected populations, problems exist with some alerting
tools not being able to target their alerts only to the
population at risk. NOAA All-Hazard Radio, for example, sends
alerts according to county boundaries. This causes significant
problems when the county is very large and the threat is
confined to a small geographic region in the county. It is
particularly troublesome when the county is densely populated
and large sections of the unaffected population receive an
alert. Traditional broadcast media only have the ability to
provide an alert to all of their customers within their
broadcast region. In addition, a significant problem develops
when citizens begin to ignore the alerts because they are
receiving numerous alerts that do not pertain to them.
TSUNAMI PREPAREDNESS
Tsunami are a fast-moving series of ocean waves generated by
rapid, large-scale displacement of the seafloor which raises
and/or lowers the water column above it. Such displacement is
usually caused by submarine geologic activity such as
volcanoes, earthquakes, or landslides. Variables affecting the
size and power of tsunami include: the size and speed of the
seafloor displacement, the depth of the water column above the
displacement, the efficiency of the energy transfer from the
earth's crust to the water column, and the shape of the
shoreline and the seafloor along the coast where the waves
reach land.
Tsunami can travel across open ocean at great speeds,
sometimes over 600 miles per hour in very deep water. They can
be only a few inches high and many miles long. As tsunami enter
shallow water, their speed decreases and the wave height
increases. This ``shoaling effect'' creates a larger,
relatively slower wave that can cause massive damage in coastal
areas and low-lying inland regions. Tsunami often appear as a
rapidly moving tide, a series of breaking waves, or a bore wave
(a step-like wave with a steep breaking front). Tsunami rarely
cause the high, breaking waves which many people envision
``tidal waves'' look like. Behind the bore is a fast-moving
flood that is capable of carrying extremely large and heavy
pieces of debris. Strong tsunami-induced currents can lead to
erosion of foundations around coastal structures. Finally,
tsunami can result in significant loss of life.
Providing sufficient warning is crucial for minimizing the
loss of life due to tsunami. NOAA is responsible for
coordinating tsunami-related activities in the United States
and works closely with the United States Geological Survey
(USGS) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) to provide,
respectively, seismographic information and science and
research capabilities. NOAA also represents the United States
as a member of the International Tsunami Warning System in the
Pacific, the only international tsunami warning system. The
operational center of the international system is located at
the National Weather Service offices in Hawaii. The
international system was established by the Intergovernmental
Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of the United Nations
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in
1965. While the system can detect earthquakes through a global
seismic network, it has tsunami forecasting and warning
capability only for locations in the Pacific.
Tsunami preparedness requires systems to address detection
and warning; research, education and preparedness; hazard
mitigation; and international participation and cooperation.
The U.S. tsunami warning program, first established in 1948, is
run by NOAA through 2 tsunami warning centers, located in
Hawaii and Alaska, which collate and analyze seismic data from
the USGS, sea level data from numerous coastal monitoring
stations, and pressure data from an array of 6 Deep-ocean
Assessment and Reporting of Tsunami (DART) buoys.
Approaches and expectations for tsunami warning and
preparedness differ depending upon whether a tsunami is of a
local or distant origin. The greatest risk is posed by local
tsunami, which may give residents only a few minutes to seek
safety and are more devastating in impact. Tsunami of distant
origin may give residents more time to evacuate threatened
coastal areas, but there is greater need for timely and
accurate assessment of the hazard to avoid costly false alarms.
The National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program (NTHMP) is a
Federal/State partnership consisting of NOAA, USGS, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the States of Alaska,
California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington. This program was
established through Congressional action following the 1992
earthquake and tsunami off of California, for which no warning
was issued because of outdated detection instrumentation and
technology. The resulting NTHMP consists of 3 program areas:
(1) warning guidance (relating to the detection system), (2)
mitigation, and (3) hazard assessment.
NTHMP's mitigation efforts focus on preparing communities at
risk before a tsunami strikes to lessen the impact. This
includes educating the community, local businesses, planners,
emergency managers and government officials on the risk of
tsunami, tsunami hazard signs, evacuation routes, and how to
recognize and respond to signs of an impending tsunami. In
addition, under NOAA's voluntary Tsunami Ready Program, a
community is certified as ``Tsunami Ready'' based on its
establishment of an emergency operations center, the ability to
disseminate tsunami warnings, a tsunami hazard plan, community
awareness, and the ability to receive multiple tsunami
warnings. As of March 9, 2005, there were 16 Tsunami ready
communities located throughout the West Coast States and
Hawaii.
Another mitigation facet is hazard guidance, which develops
inundation mapping to determine areas prone to flooding from
tsunami. This goal of developing inundation maps for every at-
risk coastal community is carried out by NOAA's Center for
Tsunami Inundation Mapping Efforts (TIME), which works closely
with the States to develop mapping standards, quality control
criteria, and certification requirements.
Continuous improvement of tsunami warnings, mitigation, and
hazard preparedness efforts require a coordinated research
program. NOAA's Tsunami Research Program is headquartered at
the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle,
Washington. The program provides research support to all
aspects of the tsunami program in the U.S. This includes the
continued development of the DART buoy system; inundation
modeling for TIME; maintaining a database of tsunami events and
data from these events; tsunami modeling at the Pacific
Disaster Center and the Maui High Performance Computer Center;
and other research related to the NTHMP.
The U.S. system needs to be repaired and expanded to improve
detection and warning accuracy, and to cover areas not
currently included. The overall quality of the DART buoys'
performance has decreased 50 percent over the past 15 months.
This reduced coverage impaired NOAA's ability both to detect
and warn of a tsunami and also identify costly false alarms.
Strengthening reliability of the detection system, and further
development of a real-time two-way warning system will greatly
contribute to the security and well-being of U.S. coastal
communities. Improved mapping and community preparedness is
also a key component of any effective warning system, and not
all vulnerable communities have been determined to be tsunami-
ready.
On January 14, 2005, the Administration announced its plan
for an improved tsunami warning system throughout the Pacific
Ocean, the Caribbean Sea, and the mid-Atlantic Ocean, including
increased preparedness and research activities. On January, 24,
2005, Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens introduced S. 50, the
Tsunami Preparedness Act. The Committee reported the bill, with
an amendment to create a coastal hazard vulnerability program
on February 2, 2005. The Senate passed S. 50 on July 1, 2005.
Summary of Provisions
S. 1753, the Warning, Alert and Response Network Act, would
create a National All Hazards Alert System. The bill, as
amended, also would provide for the creation of the Tsunami
Warning Program.
The National Alert System, created under the WARN Act, would
ensure that regardless of where individuals are or what kind of
communication technologies they are using, they would receive a
life-saving alert. Alerts would be transmitted in response to
all threats to public safety, including natural disasters, man-
made accidents, and terrorist incidents.
The WARN Act would establish a network for the transmission
of alerts across a broad variety of communications
technologies, including wireless communications devices (cell
phones, Blackberries, etc.), the Internet, digital, analog,
cable, and satellite television, and satellite and terrestrial
radio, as well as non-traditional media such as sirens and
``radios-on-a-stick.'' Alerts would only be allowed for hazards
that pose a grave risk to public health and safety. This would
avoid over-activation of the system and individuals ignoring
alerts (the ``car-alarm'' syndrome).
The system would provide Federal, State, and local emergency
managers with a tool to input alerts into the system and have
them directed out to a geographically targeted section of the
population. The legislation would require that alerts provide
individuals with instructions on what to do in response to the
threat, so as to trigger protective action, not panic.
The WARN Act would establish a grant program to provide
assistance to remote communities to install sirens and other
devices to alert communities, where penetration of the
telecommunications infrastructure may not be high, ensuring
that all Americans are protected.
TSUNAMI PREPAREDNESS
Title II of the bill contains the text of S. 50, the Tsunami
Preparedness Act, as passed by the Senate on July 1, 2005. The
bill would authorize NOAA to establish, operate, and maintain a
dependable national tsunami warning system that would provide
maximum tsunami detection capability for the nation. The
provisions of title II would create a system that builds on the
model established in the Pacific, and provide for its repair,
expansion, and modernization by the close of calendar year
2007.
The system would include 4 components: (1) an expanded and
upgraded detection and warning system for both the Pacific and
the Atlantic/Caribbean/Gulf of Mexico regions; (2) a
modernization and upgrade program for the U.S. system
(including immediate repair of deep ocean buoys and contractor
oversight); (3) an expanded Federal-State Tsunami Hazard
Mitigation Program to improve community outreach and
preparedness; and (4) a tsunami research program to develop
improved detection, forecasting, and communications tools. It
also would establish an Integrated Coastal Vulnerability and
Adaptation Program focused on improving the resilience of
coastal communities to natural hazards and disasters. In
addition, the legislation directs NOAA to provide any necessary
technical or other assistance to international efforts to
establish regional systems in other parts of the world,
including the Indian Ocean. Annual appropriations of $35
million would be authorized for fiscal years 2006 through 2012
for the tsunami programs. Five million dollars would be
authorized annually for the integrated coastal hazards program.
Legislative History
The Warning, Alert and Response Network Act (S. 1753) was
introduced by Senator DeMint on September 22, 2005, and
referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation. There are 7 cosponsors of S. 1753: Senators
Nelson of Nebraska, Stevens, Inouye, Lott, Vitter, Landrieu,
and Snowe. On October 20, 2005, the Committee considered the
bill in open Executive Session. Senator Stevens offered an
amendment in the nature of a substitute, and Mr. DeMint offered
a manager's amendment to the substitute. Mr. DeMint's amendment
included tribal governments in the national alert system,
ensured that the needs of older Americans are incorporated into
the system, provided for the utilization of the non-commercial
sustaining announcement program to publicize the national alert
system, provided greater integration of the National Alert
Office and the research and development and testing programs,
and integrated communications infrastructure needs into the
disaster planning process. The Committee, without objection,
adopted the substitute and the manager's amendments and ordered
S. 1753 be reported as amended.
Estimated Costs
In compliance with subsection (a)(3) of paragraph 11
of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee
states that, in its opinion, it is necessary to dispense with
the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) of that subsection
in order to expedite the business of the Senate. deg.
In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget
Office:
December 1, 2005.
Hon. Ted Stevens,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1753, the National
Alert System and Tsunami Preparedness Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Deborah
Reis and Melissa Z. Petersen.
Sincerely,
Douglas Holtz-Eakin.
Enclosure.
S. 1753--National Alert System and Tsunami Preparedness Act
Summary: S. 1753 would authorize the appropriation of $40
million a year for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2012
for a global tsunami warning and mitigation program
administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). The bill also would authorize NOAA to
oversee the development of a National Alert System (NAS)--a new
communications network for transmitting emergency information
to the public--but funding for that program would be contingent
upon the enactment of separate legislation. (That prospective
funding would be provided by title III of S. 1932, the Deficit
Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005, as passed by the
Senate on November 3, 2005.)
CBO estimates that implementing S. 1753 would cost $124
million over the 2006-2010 period and another $156 million
after 2010, assuming appropriation of the specified amounts for
the tsunami warning and mitigation program. Enacting S. 1753
would not have a significant impact on direct spending. The
bill would not affect revenues. The provisions in S. 1753
regarding a NAS would have no budgetary impact until another
law is enacted to fund the activities.
S. 1753 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined in
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA); however, CBO estimates
that the costs to the governmental entities would be small and
would not exceed the threshold established in that act ($62
million in 2005, adjusted annually for inflation). A provision
in the bill also would compensate governmental entities for
costs incurred in complying with the mandate.
S. 1753 would impose private-sector mandates as defined in
UMRA on certain licensees and permittees, including all
commercial mobile service providers and nonprofit television
broadcasters. Based on information provided by industry and
government sources, CBO expects that the aggregate direct costs
of complying with those mandates would be minimal compared to
the annual threshold established by UMRA for private-sector
mandates ($123 million in 2005, adjusted annually for
inflation).
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of S. 1753 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 300
(natural resources and environment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
--------------------------------------------
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Title II--Tsunami Preparedness
Authorization Level............................................ 40 40 40 40 40
Estimated Outlays.............................................. 8 16 20 40 40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Title I of S. 1753 would provide statutory guidelines for a National Alert System that would be funded by
the Digital Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005, which was included as title III of S. 1932, the Deficit
Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005, as passed by the Senate. That legislation would provide $250
million in direct spending authority for such a program.
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that S.
1753 will be enacted during fiscal year 2006 and that the
entire amounts authorized will be appropriated for each year.
Estimated outlays are based on historical spending patterns of
similar programs.
Tsunami preparedness
Title II of the bill would direct NOAA to establish and
implement new programs to research, detect, monitor, and
mitigate the effects of tsunamis in the Pacific and Atlantic
oceans. The bill would direct the agency to upgrade and improve
existing systems and data management efforts and would
authorize it to provide technical and financial aid to those
affected by tsunamis, including local and international
entities. For those purposes, the bill would authorize the
appropriation of $40 million for each of fiscal years 2006
through 2012, including $8 million annually for pilot projects
to assess the vulnerability of coastal areas of the United
States. Some of the costs of carrying out a program for tsunami
warning and mitigation may be offset by reimbursements from
other countries participating in the program, but CBO estimates
that such reimbursements would be less than $500,000 annually.
National Alert System
Title I of S. 1753 would authorize NOAA to establish a
National Alert System, which would coordinate existing
emergency communication systems and use multiple technologies
for communicating emergency information. Under S. 1753, funding
for the NAS program would be contingent on the enactment of
separate legislation. That other legislation--the Digital
Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005, which was included as
title III of S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Omnibus
Reconciliation Act of 2005 as passed by the Senate--would allow
the Department of Commerce to spend $250 million for a NAS
program without further appropriation.
S. 1753 would not authorize appropriations for the NAS
program, nor would it provide direct spending authority for the
activities. If both S. 1753 and S. 1932 are enacted, however,
S. 1753 could affect the timing of direct spending under the
authority provided by S. 1932 because it would set statutory
guidelines for implementing the NAS. For example, the bill
would direct NOAA to certify and train public agencies having
access to the system; reimburse broadcasters for certain
expenses related to the program; and fund research and
development, public outreach, and grants to remote communities
to implement the system. Such directives could change the
timing of program outlays if the nature of those activities
differed from those that would have been undertaken by the
department in the absence of this bill.
Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal governments:
S. 1753 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined by
UMRA. The bill would require public broadcasting stations to
install necessary equipment to enable the reception, relay, and
retransmission of alerts by the National Alert System. CBO
estimates that aggregate costs for those stations to comply
would require the National Alert Office to compensate public
broadcasting stations for costs incurred in complying with the
mandate.
S. 1753 also would establish and implement new programs to
research, detect, monitor, and mitigate the effects of tsunamis
in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Coastal states and local
communities would benefit from the programs and grants
authorized in this bill; any costs they face to participate in
those programs would be incurred voluntarily.
Estimated impact on the private sector: S. 1753 would
impose private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA on certain
licensee and permittees, including all commercial mobile
service providers and nonprofit television broadcasters. Based
on information provided by industry and government sources, CBO
expects that the aggregate direct costs of complying with those
mandates would be minimal compared to the annual threshold
established by UMRA for private-sector mandates ($123 million
in 2005, adjusted annually for inflation).
Section 103 of the bill would require any licensee
providing commercial mobile service to make an election of
whether or not they will participate in the transmission of
National Alert System alerts. Currently, mobile service
providers are not required to make this election. Thus, this
provision would constitute a new enforceable duty on the
private sector.
Those providers choosing not to participate would be
required to inform consumers at the point of sale with a clear
disclosure stating that alert transmissions will not be
provided by their service. Although not specified in the
legislation, government sources have explained that such
disclosures could take many forms such as written documents,
contracts, signs, etc. CBO estimates that the direct costs for
such disclosures would be minimal.
Those providers electing to participate in the transmission
of NAS alerts would be required to follow future FCC
regulations and certify to the commission that they will follow
the standards and protocols implemented by the National Alert
Office. Due to uncertainty about future rulemaking and
protocols, the direct costs of participating in NAS alert
transmissions is unknown and those costs could be greater than
the option of not participating. CBO assumes that those
providers electing to participate in such transmission would do
so because the net benefit of participating would be greater
than that of not participating.
Section 103 also would require nonprofit broadcasting
stations to install necessary equipment to enable the
reception, relay, and retransmission of alerts by the National
Alert System. According to government and industry sources,
most nonprofit broadcasting stations currently broadcast
digital transmissions and could transmit such alerts by
purchasing an alerts receiver. Consequently, CBO estimates that
the aggregate costs for those stations to comply would be
minimal. The bill also would require the National Alert Office
to compensate public broadcasting stations for costs incurred
in complying with this mandate.
Previous CBO estimates: On March 17, 2005, CBO transmitted
a cost estimate for S. 50, the Tsunami Preparedness Act, as
ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation on March 17, 2005. S. 50 is nearly identical
to title II of S. 1753, which addresses tsunami preparedness
programs to be carried out by NOAA. The estimated costs of the
two versions of the legislation are identical except for 2006,
reflecting a later assumed enactment date for S. 1753. Title II
of S. 1753 is also similar to H.R. 1674, the United States
Tsunami Warning and Education Act, as ordered reported by the
House Committee on Science on May 4, 2005. Our estimate for the
House bill, transmitted on May 12, 2005, reflected the lower
authorizations levels of that version.
On October 24, 2005, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for
the Digital Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005, as
approved by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation on October 20, 2005. The spending authorized in
S. 1753 for the National Alert System would be derived from a
fund that would be created by the Digital Transition and Public
Safety Act of 2005, which was included as title III of S. 1932,
the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005, as
passed by the Senate on November 3, 2005.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Deborah Reis and
Melissa Z. Petersen. Impact on State, Local, and Tribal
Governments: Lisa Ramirez-Branum. Impact on the Private Sector:
Craig Cammarata.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Regulatory Impact Statement
In compliance with subsection (b)(2) of paragraph 11
of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee
states that, in its opinion, it is necessary to dispense with
the requirements of paragraph (1) of that subsection in order
to expedite the business of the Senate. deg.
Because S. ------ does not create any new programs,
the legislation will have no additional regulatory impact, and
will result in no additional reporting requirements. The
legislation will have no further effect on the number or types
of individuals and businesses regulated, the economic impact of
such regulation, the personal privacy of affected individuals,
or the paperwork required from such individuals and
businesses. deg.
In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the
following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the
legislation, as reported:
NUMBER OF PERSONS COVERED
The bill would provide for the voluntary participation in a
national all-hazards alert system. The bill would only effect
individuals to the extent that a communications technology they
utilize participates in the National Alert System. The bill
would require emergency management personnel seeking
credentials under section 103 of the Act, to comply with
regulations on the appropriate use of the National Alert
System.
ECONOMIC IMPACT
S. 1753 would not have an adverse economic impact on the
nation's economy. The Act would create a national all-hazards
alerting system and protect citizens from the impact of
tsunamis. The legislation authorizes the expenditure of
$250,000,000 from the Digital Transition and Public Safety Fund
in accordance with section 5 of the Digital Transition and
Public Safety Act of 2005.
PRIVACY
The reported bill would have little, if any, impact on the
personal privacy of U.S. citizens.
PAPERWORK
The reported bill should not significantly increase paperwork
requirements for individuals and businesses. Section 104(c) of
the Act would require the National Alert Office to submit and
annual report to the President and Congress and a 5-year report
to the President and Congress.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 101. Short title.
Section 101 would establish the short title of the bill as
the ``Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act.''
Section 102. National Alert System.
Section 102 would provide for the establishment of a national
alerting system. The section also describes the functional
characteristics and capabilities of the system. It is the
Committee's intention that the system leverage and enhance the
existing warning capabilities of the Federal, State and local
governments. The Committee believes the system should
incorporate the broadest variety of communications
technologies, including digital and analog broadcast radio and
television, cable and satellite television, satellite and
terrestrial radio, wireless communications--including personal
digital assistants, cellular telephones, and pagers--wireline
communications, the Internet, as well as solutions such as
sirens and indoor and outdoor alerting technologies that
utilize intelligible voice messaging. Additionally, the system
should incorporate the existing emergency alert system, NOAA
All-Hazards Radio system, as well as systems deployed by State,
tribal and local governments. Finally the legislation
anticipates that technology will evolve and instructs that the
system be designed in a manner that allows for the inclusion of
new technologies in the future.
The Committee encourages the National Alert Office to design
the National Alert System in such a manner that the alerts
transmitted across the system are capable of being
retransmitted by satellite radio licensees. Additionally, the
Committee encourages the National Alert Office to design the
National Alert System in such a manner as to allow alerts to be
retransmitted to personal computers. The personal computing
industry should proactively engage the National Alert Office to
ensure that the unique needs of the personal computing
community are taken into account in the system's architecture
and design. Finally the Committee understands that traditional
broadcast television and radio play a crucial role in alerting
individuals to threats to their community. It is the
expectation of the Committee that the National Alert System
should be designed to leverage existing resources that have
already been deployed by broadcasters for transmission of
emergency alert system messages.
Section 102(a) would establish the National Alert System.
Section 102(b) would outline the functions of the system,
which are to: (1) allow appropriately credentialed Federal,
State or local officials to use the system for threats that
pose an imminent risk to public health or safety; (2) ensure
coordination with existing warning systems; (3) ensure that the
system is designed in such a manner as to target alerts to a
small population and avoid over-alerting; and (4) ensure the
system incorporates a broad variety of media so that the public
is exposed to an alert regardless of what type of
communications technologies they use.
Section 102(c) would detail the capabilities of the system,
which include: (1) the requirement that the system incorporate
multiple technologies and be capable of incorporating future
technologies; (2) the capability of being used by individuals
with disabilities; (3) lack of interference and incorporation
of existing alert systems; (4) the use of multiple technology
platforms such as the Internet, cell phones, blackberries,
etc.; (5) being capable of including technologies to serve
rural and remote communities; (6) the capability of providing
alerts in languages other than English; and (7) a design to
promote community preparedness and response.
Section 102(d) would outline that the system should include
alert mechanisms that do not require public activation and that
alerts should be sent out over multiple communication
technologies.
Section 102(e) would direct the Director of the National
Alert System to ensure that the National Alert System
complements the existing Federal alerting systems, including
the Emergency Alert System (EAS) and NOAA All Hazards Radio.
Section 102(f) would direct the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) to conclude its pending proceeding on the
Digital Emergency Alert System, would allow the Secretary of
Homeland Security and the Governors to access EAS, and would
ensure that EAS alerts are also transmitted in languages other
than English.
Section 103. Implementation and use.
Section 103 would provide guidelines for the implementation
of the system, participation in the system, and guidelines for
its use.
Section 103(a) outlines the process for credentialing
emergency managers to use the system. Under this section the
National Alert Office would establish a procedure to provide
Federal, State, tribal, and local government officials with
credentials access to the National Alert System to send alerts
to the public. The legislation requires the head of a Federal
agency to submit the names of individuals they believe need to
access the system (e.g. NOAA would submit to the National Alert
Office the names of meteorologists who need the authority to
transmit alerts across the system). The governor of a State or
the leader of a federally-recognized tribe would transmit the
names of individuals who they believe need to have access to
the system. The Committee expects that the governors would
transmit to the National Alert Office for approval both
recommendations from the various political subdivisions within
their State and the names of officials with statewide
authority. The Committee encourages the governors to submit the
names of relevant and appropriate fire chiefs--along with other
public safety personnel--for credentialing, so that the chiefs
may continue to issue warnings that are within their purview.
While the National Alert Office should give deference to the
requests from the governors, there is an expectation that the
requests will be limited to relatively senior individuals
within the emergency management community.
This section also would charge the National Alert Office with
outlining what group of individuals would have credentials and
what authority those credentials would grant. The credentials
would be limited to the individual's geographic area of
responsibility (e.g. a meteorologist assigned to a Weather
Forecast Office in Sterling, Virginia will not have the
authority to issue an alert in California), as well as their
subject matter area of expertise (e.g. an emergency manager
responsible for hazardous materials response would not have the
authority to issue an alert regarding severe weather). The
Committee understands that emergency management personnel are
often responsible for responding to a variety of threats and
the credentialing procedure should accommodate that reality.
Finally, training would be a crucial component of the
responsible and effective use of the system. While the system
has the potential to save lives, its use in situations where
life is not in jeopardy could degrade the effectiveness of the
warning system. To that end, the legislation would require that
users of the system undergo training to receive their
credentials and periodic training to maintain their
credentials.
Section 103(b) would task the Office with outlining the class
of events that can trigger an alert to be sent across the
system. Because of the serious threat to the system posed by
over-use, the Office should craft regulations that ensure that
the alerts are only transmitted during serious emergency
circumstances, and for testing the system. It is the
Committee's expectation that the Office would craft regulations
that provide clear guidance to credentialed users, and the
public, on when an alert will and will not be sent across the
system. Specifically the Committee would anticipate that the
Office may want to allow the use of alerts to publicize the
provision of life-saving resources such as emergency shelter
during an evacuation or water and ice after a disaster.
Finally the section allows the establishment of a procedure
for the transmission of non-critical alert information, such as
traffic, school closure, and non-severe weather information.
The transmittal of optional alerts should proceed in a manner
that does not interfere with the transmission of emergency
alerts. Additionally, receipt of optional alerts should require
an individual to elect to receive those alerts. Alerts under
this section could include emails distributed by a local school
district, the subscription to a fee-based, value-added service,
or the receipt of messages on a wireless device which could be
treated similar to other non-emergency related traffic.
Section 103(b) would outline requirements for emergency
alerts that would be transmitted across the system. The section
would outline that only alerts that pose an imminent threat to
public safety should be transmitted across the system. The
section also would instruct the Director of the National Alert
Office to promulgate regulations that outline what type of
alerts may be transmitted across the system and provide
guidance on the content of these alerts. The section also would
provide that the backbone of the system could be used for the
retransmission of alerts that do not deal with imminent threats
to public health and safety, but any such alerts must be
transmitted in a manner that does not interfere with an
emergency alert. In addition, the section would specify that
individuals would have to take some affirmative action, such as
subscribing to a service, to receive these alerts.
Section 103(c) would task the National Alert Office with
designing a system that would provide a mechanism for emergency
managers at all levels of government to input appropriate
alerts into the system and have them distributed through the
various delivery mechanisms. This could include the integration
of software tools into disaster management and weather
forecasting software, or a secure web portal where appropriate
alerts could be entered.
Section 103(c) would require that there be multiple access
points for emergency managers to input alerts into the system
and that the system be redundant and secure.
Section 103(d) would describe a two-fold process in which the
FCC is required to initiate a proceeding, after technical
standards have been adopted by the National Alert Office, to
allow wireless providers to participate in the National Alert
System and retransmit alerts. After the FCC issues an order,
wireless providers would elect either to provide the alerts to
all their customers, or not to participate. If they do not
participate, they must disclose clearly and conspicuously at
the point of sale of their devices that they do not
participate. If participating providers want, they may provide
mechanisms for wireless devices to allow customers to block
most alerts from the system. The section also provides for the
Commission to develop a procedure for carriers to withdraw from
the system and enter at a date later than the first election.
Finally, section 103(d)(3) would provide a mechanism for the
FCC to institute a proceeding similar to that outlined in
section 103(d)(1) and (2) for licensees other than those
covered by section 332(d)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934
(47 U.S.C. 332(d)(1)), who would serve significant portions of
the population and would be logical providers of alerts through
the National Alerting System.
Section 103(d) would detail how wireless providers would
elect to participate in the system. The section would provide a
voluntary system where wireless providers decide whether or not
they wish to offer their customers alerts through the National
Alerting System. Under this subsection: (1) 60 days after the
National Alert Office adopts the technical standards for the
system, the FCC would initiate a proceeding to allow a
commercial mobile service licensee to transmit System alerts
and would require those who elect not to participate to
disclose to their customers in a clear and conspicuous manner
that the devices they sell would not transmit alerts; and (2)
within 30 days of the conclusion of the FCC proceeding,
wireless carriers would file an election with the FCC
indicating whether or not they wish to transmit alerts. If they
elect to participate, they would agree to do so in a manner
consistent with the standards and protocols of the system and
periodically test their equipment. The section also clarifies
that carriers would have the authority to advertise that they
transmit alerts and would set up a procedure for providers to
withdraw from or enter the system at a later date. The section
would give the carriers the authority to install technology in
their wireless devices that would allow customers to block most
alerts if they wish. This section also would provide the FCC
with the authority to expand the class of licensees
participating beyond just commercial mobile service to other
technologies if necessary.
Section 103(e) would build on the work of the Integrated
Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) pilot project which
uses a portion of the bandwidth used by digital public
television licensees to transmit alerts. This section would
require such licensees and permittees to install necessary
equipment for the purpose of broadcasting alerts which would
then be received and retransmitted by the communication
technologies contemplated by the Act to their customers.
Section 103(e) would provide for the use of digital public
television towers to serve as a backbone for the distribution
of alerts. Public television stations have agreed to segregate
a portion of their broadcast spectrum for broadcast of Internet
protocol formatted alerts, which would then be received and
retransmitted by various communication providers.
Section 103(f) would promote industry participation in the
National Alert System by protecting participants from liability
related to ``any act or omission related to any harm from the
transmission of, or failure to transmit'' an alert. This
protection could cover: (1) the transmission of, or failure to
transmit, a System alert; (2) incorrect or confusing content of
a System alert; (3) the failure, deficiency, or malfunction of
any network, equipment, or facility of the provider or any
other person, or the lack of coverage or network capacity in
connection with the transmission or receipt of a System alert;
(4) the failure to receive an alert because a subscriber's
service may have been suspended or discontinued for payment-
related or similar reasons; (5) the unavailability of any
network, equipment, or facility of the provider or any other
person used to provide a System alert; and (6) a person's
election to activate a technology in their devices to block
alerts from the National Alert System.
To ensure that the system works appropriately, section 103(g)
would provide for a testing regime to be administered by the
Director of the Alert Office.
Section 104. National Alert Office.
Section 104(a) would provide for the establishment of a
National Alert Office: (1) within NOAA; (2) led by a Director
with significant emergency alerting experience; and (3) staffed
by individuals with significant experience in the
telecommunications industry and detailees from other Federal
agencies. Additionally, the Committee stresses the need for the
Office to have staff detailed to the Office from the Department
of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, so that the concerns and expertise of those agencies
could be incorporated in the design, management, and operation
of the system.
Section 104(b) would detail the functions and
responsibilities for the Office which include: (1) the
administration and operation of the system; (2) the
implementation of the National Alert System Working Group's
recommendations on the technical aspects of the system; (3)
that the Director of the Office ensure that the system is
available only to credentialed personnel; (4) that it provide
geographically targeted alerts; (5) that alerts are verified
before transmission and comply with adopted protocols and
standards; and (6) that the security of the system and the
various alerts is maintained.
Section 104(c) would require the Office to keep Congress
abreast of its operations and plans by publishing annual
reports and a 5-year plan.
Section 104(d) would task GAO to audit periodically the
National Alert Office and tasks the Alert Office to respond in
its annual report to any adverse findings in the GAO audit.
Section 105. National Alert System Working Group.
Section 105 would establish the National Alert System Working
Group. The section would outline a procedure where a diverse
group of experts, with extensive practical experience in their
area of expertise, would develop detailed recommendations for
the protocols and standards for the system, procedures for
verifying, modifying and canceling alerts transmitted across
the system, guidelines for the technical capabilities of the
system as well as technical capabilities for priority
transmittal of alerts, standards for equipment to be used by
the system, and other technical issues that need to be
addressed by the system.
The Working Group should pay particular attention to existing
Federal, State and local systems and the associated protocols
and procedures, and when appropriate, build upon those systems,
procedures, and protocols that have demonstrated their
effectiveness.
The Director would appoint members of the Working Group from
3 primary groups: Federal personnel; State, local and tribal
personnel; and subject matter experts from industry. It is the
Committee's expectation that all parties on the Working Group
would work cooperatively to develop a solution that properly
balances emergency management needs and technical capabilities.
FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES
Under section 105(b)(2) the Director would appoint
representatives from Federal agencies that have significant
responsibility for emergency management and public alerting.
The Committee anticipates significant representation from the
Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency. The Director also should draw upon the
standards development expertise of the National Institute for
Standards and Technology (NIST) when constituting the Working
Group. The Committee expects that all agency representatives
would participate fully in the Working Group and bring their
particular expertise to the Working Group to ensure its
effectiveness.
STATE AND LOCAL REPRESENTATIVES
Under section 105(b)(3) the Director of the National Alert
Office would appoint State and local personnel with practical
experience in emergency management. These individuals would
provide important guidance on what type of capabilities the
emergency management community would need to respond to a
disaster. The section provides a mechanism for national
organizations representing State and local governments and
emergency management personnel to nominate individuals for
inclusion on the Working Group. It is the Committee's
expectation that individuals with extensive practical
experience would be nominated and that the Director would show
significant deference to those nominations.
TRIBAL REPRESENTATIVES
Under section 105(b)(4) the Director would appoint
individuals from tribal governments upon the recommendation of
the elected leader of a federally recognized tribe.
SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS
Section 105(b)(5) would direct the Director to appoint
subject matter experts to the Working Group from various
sectors of the telecommunications industry. The Director should
appoint a sufficient number of subject matter experts to ensure
that there is broad representation of all sectors of the
telecommunications industry who would be participating in the
National Alert System. Specifically the Committee would expect
that there be representation of wireless telecommunication
providers, the public television stations, telecommunications
hardware and software manufacturers and developers,
manufacturers of mass notification systems using intelligible
voice messaging, satellite radio and television, cable
television, and members of the broadcast industry. The
Committee does not intend this to be an exhaustive list and
encourages the Director to appoint as many individuals as
necessary to assure that there is the necessary expertise to
ensure the effective design, development and operation of the
system.
Section 105(c) would outline the duties of the Working Group.
While the final authority for the adoption of the
recommendations of the Working Group would rest with the
Director, it is the expectation of the Committee that the
Director consider carefully the recommendations of the Working
Group. It is also the expectation of the Committee that the
Working Group produce a detailed and practical plan that can be
implemented by the Director to establish a National Alerting
System.
Section 105(c)(2) would instruct the Working Group to work
with the operators of nuclear facilities and other critical
infrastructure facilities. For example, the Committee is aware
that the Department of Defense and other entities use mass
notifications systems with intelligible voice messaging over
personal computing devices and intelligible speaker arrays to
notify their personnel and the public at large with real-time
information in an endangered area during emergencies. The
Committee would encourage the Working Group to coordinate with
these entities to the extent possible.
Section 105(d) would outline the procedure for the meeting of
the Working Group.
Section 105(e) would ensure that the Working Group would have
access to resources from Federal agencies and would be able to
accept gifts and grants.
Section 105(f) would outline the rules for the Working Group
and provide it with the authority to have subcommittees.
Section 105(g) would exempt the Working Group from the
Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Section 106. Research and development.
Section 106 would establish an extramural research and
development program lead by the Director of the National Alert
Office to develop the technologies necessary to enable
communication providers to retransmit alerts from the system.
The research and development program should focus its primary
attention on developing technologies for the delivery of
geographically targeted alerts over wireless devices.
The Committee intends that the research and development
program include a broad variety of participants in addition to
participants from industry. The Committee stresses that NIST
has extensive expertise that could be offered to the research
and development program and would strongly encourage the
National Alert Office to work with NIST to ensure their
participation.
The Committee also notes that there is a lack of research
into the content of an alert and how to draft an alert
effectively so that its direction would be heeded by the
public. Section 106(b)(2)(C) would provide the authority and
direction to conduct a research program to increase the
understanding of and response to warnings. The Committee
encourages the Office to conduct a program of sociological and
behavior research into the response to warnings and alerts to
ensure the most effective response to National Alert System
alerts.
Section 106(b) would detail the functions of the research and
development program specifying that it may include industry,
government and academia, and that the research program should
develop innovative technologies, enhance participation, improve
response to warnings and enhance the integration of the alert
system into local community emergency management programs.
Section 106(c) instructs the research program to take
advantage of the expertise of NIST.
Section 107. Grant program for remote community alert systems.
Section 107(a) would instruct the Administrator of NOAA to
establish a grant program to provide for the installation of
technologies in remote communities to ensure that they are
effectively alerted. This could include, for example, the
installation of sirens in rural communities or the installation
of radio-receiving sirens on beaches to alert vacationers.
Section 107(b) would establish the procedures for efficient
management and execution of the grant program.
Section 107(c) sunsets the program after 5 years.
Section 108. Public familiarization, outreach, and response
instructions.
Section 108 would provide the National Alert Office with the
authority to conduct a public outreach program to familiarize
the public with the National Alert System. The Committee would
encourage the Office to develop a program that utilizes the
various outreach tools specified in the bill, as well as other
tools they deem appropriate, in a manner that is most effective
and has the highest impact. The Committee has no preference for
any one outreach mechanism and encourages the Office to craft
an outreach program that best informs the public.
Section 109. Telecommunications infrastructure restoration,
preparedness, and response.
Section 109 outlines procedures for providing for the prompt
and effective restoration of emergency services in the wake of
a disaster and provides a planning mechanism to ensure that
communications infrastructure is part of the disaster planning
process.
Section 110. Definitions.
Section 110 defines Director, Office, National Alert System,
and Working Group.
Section 111. Funding.
Section 111 would provide for funding to be made available
from the proceeds from the auction of spectrum as provided in
S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of
2005. The Committee expects that after research and development
and establishment of the system occur that NOAA would provide
funding for the operation and maintenance of the system in
their annual budget request.
Section 201. Short title.
Section 201 would establish that title II of the bill shall
be referred to as the ``Tsunami Preparedness Act.''
Section 202. Findings and purposes.
Section 202(a) would set forth the findings for the Act.
Section 202(b) would set forth the purposes of the act, which
are to: (1) improve tsunami detection, forecast, warnings,
notification, preparedness, and mitigation in the United States
and elsewhere in the world; (2) improve the existing Pacific
Tsunami Warning System and expand detection and warning systems
to other vulnerable States and United States territories,
including the Caribbean/Atlantic/Gulf region; (3) increase and
accelerate mapping, modeling, research, assessment, education,
and outreach efforts; (4) provide technical and other
assistance to speed international efforts to establish regional
tsunami warning systems in vulnerable areas worldwide; and (5)
improve Federal, State, and international coordination for
tsunami and other coastal hazard warnings, and preparedness.
Section 203. Tsunami detection and warning system.
Section 203(a) would direct the Administrator of NOAA to
operate regional tsunami warning systems for the Pacific Ocean
region and the region encompassing the Atlantic Ocean,
Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico.
Section 203(b) would state that the system would consist of
both a Pacific tsunami warning system, to cover the entire
Pacific Ocean area, including the Western, Central, North,
Eastern, South, and Arctic areas, as well as an Atlantic and
Caribbean system. The Atlantic and Caribbean system would cover
areas that the Administrator determines to be geologically
active or have the potential for geological activity, and pose
measurable risks of tsunamis for States along the coastal areas
of the Atlantic Ocean or the Gulf of Mexico. The section also
would state that the system would: (1) utilize an array of deep
ocean detection buoys; (2) include an associated tide gauge
system; (3) include any other sensors needed for tsunami and
weather warnings and forecasts; (4) provide for cooperation
between NOAA and USGS; (5) provide for information and data
processing through the tsunami warning centers; (6) be
integrated into United States and global ocean and earth
observing systems, including the Global Earth Observing System
of Systems; and (7) provide an infrastructure, building on
local systems, for at-risk tsunami communities that supports
rapid and reliable alert notices to the public. This section
also would direct the Administrator to leverage assistance and
assets of the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Navy in deploying and
maintaining detection buoys.
Section 203(c) would direct the Administrator to establish
tsunami warning centers to provide a link between detection and
warning systems and the tsunami hazard mitigation program,
including the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Hawaii and the
West Coast/Alaska Tsunami Warning Center in Alaska. The
responsibilities of these centers would include: (1) continuous
monitoring of data from seismological stations, deep ocean
buoys, and tidal monitoring stations and providing such data to
the national tsunami archive; (2) evaluating earthquakes that
have the potential to generate a tsunami; (3) evaluating other
deep ocean buoy and tidal monitoring station data; and (4)
disseminating information and warning bulletins for local and
distant tsunamis.
Section 203(d) would direct the Administrator to maintain a
national and regional data management system to address the
data requirements of the tsunami detection and monitoring
system including: (1) quality control and assurance; (2)
archival and maintenance of data; (3) support the integration
of data from the tsunami observation system with data from
other observation systems; and (4) support the development and
access of data products to the assessment and adaptation
programs covered in section 208.
Section 204. Tsunami hazard mitigation program.
Section 204(a) would authorize the Administrator to conduct a
community-based tsunami hazard mitigation program to improve
tsunami preparedness in at-risk areas.
Section 204(b) would require the Administrator to establish a
coordinating committee consisting of representatives of NOAA,
USGS, NSF, NIST, and affected coastal States and territories.
This section envisions the inclusion of State, local and non-
governmental entities, such as academic institutions, in the
program.
Section 204(c) would set forth the components of the tsunami
hazard mitigation program, which would: (1) improve the quality
and extent of inundation mapping; (2) promote and improve
community outreach and education networks and programs; (3)
integrate tsunami awareness, preparedness and mitigation
programs into ongoing hazard warnings and risk management
programs in affected areas; (4) promote the adoption of tsunami
warning and mitigation measures by Federal, State, tribal, and
local government and non-government entities; (5) develop
tsunami specific rescue and recovery guidelines; (6) require
budget coordination through the Administration to ensure that
participating agencies provide necessary funds; and (7) provide
for periodic external review of the program.
Section 205. Tsunami research program.
Section 205(a) would require the Administrator to establish,
in coordination with other agencies and academic institutions,
a tsunami research program to develop detection, prediction,
communication, and mitigation science and technology that
supports tsunami forecasts and warnings. This program would
include sensing techniques, tsunami tracking, and forecast
modeling to: (1) help determine whether an earthquake or
seismic event will result in a tsunami, and the likely path,
severity, duration and travel time of a tsunami; (2) develop
techniques and technologies that may be used to quickly and
effectively communicate tsunami warnings and forecasts; (3)
develop techniques and technologies to support evacuation
products; and (4) develop techniques for utilizing remote
sensing technologies in rescue and recovery situations.
Section 205(b) would direct the Administrator, in
consultation with other appropriate Federal agencies, to
investigate the potential for improved technology for tsunami
and other hazard warnings to the public.
Section 206. Tsunami system upgrade and modernization.
Section 206(a) would direct the Administrator to: (1)
authorize the direct and immediate repair of existing deep
ocean detection buoys; (2) ensure the deployment of an array of
deep ocean detection buoys; and (3) ensure expansion and
upgrade of the tide gauge network.
Section 206(b) would set forth requirements for the
Administrator in carrying out this section with respect to the
transfer of technology, maintenance, and upgrades, including:
(1) promulgating specifications and standards for forecast,
detection, and warning systems; (2) developing and executing a
plan for the transfer of technology from ongoing research to
long-term operations; (3) ensuring the maintenance and
operation of detection equipment; (4) obtaining priority
treatment in budgeting for acquiring, transporting, and
maintenance of tsunami detection system equipment; and (5)
ensuring the integration of the tsunami detection system with
other United States and global and coastal observation systems.
Section 206(c) would require that before appropriated amounts
are obligated or expended for the acquisition of services for
construction or deployment of tsunami detection equipment, the
Administrator must certify to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation, and the House of Representatives
Committees on Science and Resources within 60 calendar days
after the President submits the Budget of the United States
that: (1) each contractor has met contract requirements; (2)
that constructed equipment is capable of becoming fully
operational without additional expenditures of appropriated
funds; and (3) that there are no foreseeable delays in
deployment and operation.
Section 206(d) would require that the Administrator notify
the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
and the House of Representatives Committees on Science and
Resources of impaired regional detection coverage due to
equipment or system failure, and significant contractor
failures or delays in completing work associated with the
tsunami detection and warning system.
Section 206(e) would require the Administrator to submit an
annual report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, and the House of Representatives Committee on
Science, on the status of the tsunami detection and warning
system.
Section 206(f) would require the National Academy of Sciences
to review the tsunami detection, forecast, and warning system,
and transmit a report on its findings and recommendations to
the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
and the House of Representatives Committee on Science within 24
months after the date of enactment.
Section 207. Global tsunami warning and mitigation network.
Section 207(a) would require the Administrator, in
coordination with the other members of the United States
Interagency Committee of the National Tsunami Mitigation
Program, to provide technical assistance and advice to the
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO, the World
Meteorological Organization, and other international entities,
as part of international efforts to develop a fully functional
global tsunami warning system.
Section 207(b) would direct the Administrator to establish
and operate an International Tsunami Information Center
(Center) for all nations participating in the International
Tsunami Warning System of the Pacific and other nations
participating in UNESCO's global tsunami warning system. The
Center's responsibilities would include: (1) monitoring
international tsunami warnings in the Pacific; (2) assisting
member States in establishing their own tsunami warning
systems; (3) maintaining a library of tsunami related materials
for use by the global scientific community; and (4)
dissemination of tsunami related information.
Section 207(c) would direct the Administrator to give
priority to assisting nations in identifying vulnerable coastal
areas, creating inundation maps, obtaining and designing
detection and reporting equipment, and establishing
communication and warning networks. It also states that the
Administrator may establish a process for the transfer of
detection and communication technology to affected nations in
order to establish an international tsunami warning system and
that the Administrator would provide technical and other
assistance to support international tsunami education,
response, vulnerability, and adaptation programs.
Section 207(d) would prohibit the Administrator from
providing assistance for any region unless all affected nations
in that region participating in the tsunami warning network
agree to share relevant data associated with the development
and operation of the network.
Section 207(e) would direct the Administrator, in
coordination with the Secretary of State, to seek financial
assistance from participating nations in order to ensure a
fully functional global tsunami warning system.
Section 207(f) would allow the Administrator to accept
payment to, or reimbursement of NOAA from, or on the behalf of,
international organizations and foreign authorities, for
expenses incurred by the Administrator in carrying out any
activity under this act.
Section 208. Coastal community vulnerability and adaptation program.
Section 208(a) would direct the Administrator to establish an
Integrated Coastal Vulnerability and Adaptation Program focused
on improving the resilience of coastal communities to natural
hazards and disasters. Six areas of activity are suggested: (1)
development of vulnerability maps for coastal communities to a
wide array of potential hazards; (2) efforts to better
integrate risk management with community planning; (3) risk
management leadership training for public officials; (4)
development of risk assessment technologies; (5) new data
services to support the new risk management activities; and (6)
new risk notification systems.
Section 208(b) would direct the Administrator to begin 3
regional pilot projects incorporating the activities described
in section 208(a). These projects should begin no more than one
year after the enactment of this bill and provide regional
assessments of U.S. coastal vulnerability to hazards associated
with tsunami and other natural hazards or coastal disasters.
Regional assessments should consider the social, physical, and
economic impacts of such hazards. The assessments should also
include a description of ways to enhance the resilience of at-
risk communities, economic sectors and natural resources.
Section 208(c) would identify the selection criteria to be
used in picking appropriate regional pilot projects. These
would include: (1) vulnerability to the hazards discussed
above; (2) dependence on economic sectors and resources that
may be particularly at risk; (3) opportunities to link and use
existing risk management programs; (4) evidence of strong
interagency collaboration in the area of risk management for
tsunami and other natural hazards or coastal disasters; and (5)
access to NOAA and other Federal programs, facilities, and
infrastructure.
Section 208(d) would direct the Administrator to submit
regional adaptation plans to Congress 3 years after the
implementation of the pilot programs. These plans should be
based on the regional assessments discussed in section 208(b)
and be developed with the participation of agencies at all
levels of government as well as various non-governmental
entities that have a stake in the pilot projects. The
assessments should include recommendations for: (1) targets and
strategies for addressing the hazards discussed above; (2)
short and long term adaptation strategies; (3) Federal flood
insurance programs; (4) areas that have been identified as high
risk; (5) enhancing the effectiveness of State coastal zone
management programs in mitigating the hazards discussed above;
(6) mitigation incentives; (7) land and property owner
education; (8) economic plans for small at risk communities;
and (9) funding requirements and mechanisms.
Section 208(e) would direct the Administrator to establish a
coordinated program to provide technical planning and
assistance to coastal States, tribes and local governments as
they implement strategies developed under this section. This
program would also make available to these same entities all
products, information, tools, and technical expertise generated
through the regional assessments and adaptation plans.
Section 209. Authorization of appropriations.
Section 209 would authorize $35 million to the Administrator
of NOAA for each of fiscal years (FY) 2006 through 2012 to
carry out the purposes of this act. An additional $5 million
would be provided to NOAA for FY 2006-2012 for activities
carried out under section 8, of which at least $3 million is to
be used for the pilot programs annually.
Changes in Existing Law
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill,
as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be
omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new material is printed
in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown
in roman):
HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002
SEC. 502. RESPONSIBILITIES.
[6 U.S.C. 312]
The Secretary, acting through the Under Secretary for
Emergency Preparedness and Response, shall include--
(1) helping to ensure the effectiveness of emergency
response providers to terrorist attacks, major
disasters, and other emergencies;
(2) with respect to the Nuclear Incident Response
Team (regardless of whether it is operating as an
organizational unit of the Department pursuant to this
title (6 U.S.C. 311 et seq.))--
(A) establishing standards and certifying
when those standards have been met;
(B) conducting joint and other exercises and
training and evaluating performance; and
(C) providing funds to the Department of
Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency,
as appropriate, for homeland security planning,
exercises and training, and equipment;
(3) providing the Federal Government's response to
terrorist attacks and major disasters, including--
(A) managing such response;
(B) directing the Domestic Emergency Support
Team, the National Disaster Medical System, and
(when operating as an organizational unit of
the Department pursuant to this title (6 U.S.C.
311 et seq.)) the Nuclear Incident Response
Team;
(C) overseeing the Metropolitan Medical
Response System; and
(D) coordinating other Federal response
resources, including requiring deployment of
the Strategic National Stockpile, in the event
of a terrorist attack or major disaster;
(4) aiding the recovery from terrorist attacks and
major disasters;
(5) building a comprehensive national incident
management system with Federal, State, and local
government personnel, agencies, and authorities, in
consultation with providers of telecommunications
services (as defined in section 3(46) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153(46))) owning
or operating communications infrastructure, to respond
to such attacks and disasters;
(6) consolidating existing Federal Government
emergency response plans into a single, coordinated
national response plan; [and]
(7) helping to ensure that emergency response
providers acquire interoperable communications
[technology.] technology; and
(8) developing comprehensive mechanisms to work with
and support critical infrastructure providers,
including but not limited to providers of
telecommunications services (as defined in section
3(46) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
153(46))), to ensure sufficient communications during a
crisis or major disaster response.
ROBERT T. STAFFORD DISASTER RELIEF AND EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE ACT
SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.
[42 U.S.C. 5122]
As used in this Act--
(1) Emergency.--``Emergency'' means any occasion or
instance for which, in the determination of the
President, Federal assistance is needed to supplement
State and local efforts and capabilities to save lives
and to protect property and public health and safety,
or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in
any part of the United States.
(2) Major disaster.--``Major disaster'' means any
natural catastrophe (including any hurricane, tornado,
storm, high water, winddriven water, tidal wave,
tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide,
mudslide, snowstorm, or drought), or, regardless of
cause, any fire, flood, or explosion, in any part of
the United States, which in the determination of the
President causes damage of sufficient severity and
magnitude to warrant major disaster assistance under
this Act to supplement the efforts and available
resources of States, local governments, and disaster
relief organizations in alleviating the damage, loss,
hardship, or suffering caused thereby.
(3) United States.--``United States'' means the fifty
States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
(4) State.--``State'' means any State of the United
States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
(5) Governor.--``Governor'' means the chief executive
of any State.
(6) Local government.--The term ``local government''
means--
(A) a county, municipality, city, town,
township, local public authority, school
district, special district, intrastate
district, council of governments (regardless of
whether the council of governments is
incorporated as a nonprofit corporation under
State law), regional or interstate government
entity, or agency or instrumentality of a local
government;
(B) an Indian tribe or authorized tribal
organization, or Alaska Native village or
organization; and
(C) a rural community, unincorporated town or
village, or other public entity, for which an
application for assistance is made by a State
or political subdivision of a State.
(7) Federal agency.--``Federal agency'' means any
department, independent establishment, Government
corporation, or other agency of the executive branch of
the Federal Government, including the United States
Postal Service, but shall not include the American
National Red Cross.
(8) Public facility.--``Public facility'' means the
following facilities owned by a State or local
government:
(A) Any flood control, navigation,
irrigation, reclamation, public power, sewage
treatment and collection, water supply and
distribution, watershed development, or airport
facility.
(B) Any non-Federal-aid street, road, or
highway.
(C) Any other public building, structure, or
system, including those used for educational,
recreational, or cultural purposes.
(D) Any park.
(9) Private nonprofit facility.--``Private nonprofit
facility'' means private nonprofit educational,
utility, irrigation, emergency, medical,
rehabilitational, and temporary or permanent custodial
care facilities (including those for the aged and
disabled), other private nonprofit facilities which
provide essential services of a governmental nature to
the general public, and facilities on Indian
reservations as defined by the President.
(10) Telecommunications service provider.--The term
``telecommunications service provider'' means a
provider of telecommunications service as that term is
defined in section 3(46) of the Communications Act of
1934 (47 U.S.C. 153(46)).
SEC. 403. ESSENTIAL ASSISTANCE.
[42 U.S.C. 5170b]
(a) In General.--Federal agencies may on the direction of the
President, provide assistance essential to meeting immediate
threats to life and property resulting from a major disaster,
as follows:
[(1) Federal resources, generally.--Utilizing,
lending, or donating to State and local governments
Federal equipment, supplies, facilities, personnel, and
other resources, other than the extension of credit,
for use or distribution by such governments in
accordance with the purposes of this Act.]
(1) Federal resources.--Utilizing, lending, or
donating Federal equipment, supplies, facilities,
personnel, and other resources (other than the
extension of credit)--
(A) to State and local governments for use or
distribution by such governments in accordance
with the purposes of this Act; or
(B) to assist telecommunications service
providers in the maintenance and restoration of
communications during an emergency or major
disaster.
(2) Medicine, food, and other consumables.--
Distributing or rendering through State and local
governments, the American National Red Cross, the
Salvation Army, the Mennonite Disaster Service, and
other relief and disaster assistance organizations
medicine, food, and other consumable supplies, and
other services and assistance to disaster victims.
(3) Work and services to save lives and protect
property.--Performing on public or private lands or
waters any work or services essential to saving lives
and protecting and preserving property or public health
and safety, including--
(A) debris removal;
(B) search and rescue, emergency medical
care, emergency mass care, emergency shelter,
and provision of food, water, medicine, and
other essential needs, including movement of
supplies or persons;
(C) clearance of roads and construction of
temporary bridges necessary to the performance
of emergency tasks and essential community
services;
(D) provision of temporary facilities for
schools and other essential community services;
(E) demolition of unsafe structures which
endanger the public;
(F) warning of further risks and hazards;
(G) dissemination of public information and
assistance regarding health and safety
measures;
(H) provision of technical advice to State
and local governments on disaster management
and control; and
(I) reduction of immediate threats to life,
property, and public health and safety.
(4) Contributions.--Making contributions to State or
local governments or owners or operators of private
nonprofit facilities for the purpose of carrying out
the provisions of this subsection.
(b) Federal Share.--Federal share of assistance under this
section shall be not less than 75 percent of the eligible cost
of such assistance.
(c) Utilization of DOD Resources.--
(1) General rule.--During the immediate aftermath of
an incident which may ultimately qualify for assistance
under this title or title V of this Act (42 U.S.C. 5170
et seq. or 5191 et seq.), the Governor of the State in
which such incident occurred may request the President
to direct the Secretary of Defense to utilize the
resources of the Department of Defense for the purpose
of performing on public and private lands any emergency
work which is made necessary by such incident and which
is essential for the preservation of life and property.
If the President determines that such work is essential
for the preservation of life and property, the
President shall grant such request to the extent the
President determines practicable. Such emergency work
may only be carried out for a period not to exceed 10
days.
(2) Rules applicable to debris removal.--Any removal
of debris and wreckage carried out under this
subsection shall be subject to section 407(b) (42
U.S.C. 5172(b)), relating to unconditional
authorization and indemnification for debris removal.
(3) Expenditures out of disaster relief funds.--The
cost of any assistance provided pursuant to this
subsection shall be reimbursed out of funds made
available to carry out this Act.
(4) Federal share.--The Federal share of assistance
under this subsection shall be not less than 75
percent.
(5) Guidelines.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of the Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Amendments of 1988 (enacted Nov.
23, 1988), the President shall issue guidelines for
carrying out this subsection. Such guidelines shall
consider any likely effect assistance under this
subsection would have on the availability of other
forms of assistance under this Act.
(6) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
(A) Department of Defense.--The term
``Department of Defense'' has the meaning the
term ``department'' has under section 101 of
title 10, United States Code.
(B) Emergency work.--The term ``emergency
work'' includes clearance and removal of debris
and wreckage and temporary restoration of
essential public facilities and services.